A faith perspective on current events. By: Fr. Steven Foppiano
What Ever Happened to Free Speech?
I grew up in the 60s. I remember well those turbulent times of riots, demonstrations, and protests. There were those against the war, against the draft, against the government, and those who were anti capitalism. Time and time again those protesters would stand on their rights to free speech. Free speech allowed them to protest, march, burn flags and they often pushed it to occupy offices and disrupt commerce. In the end the abuses of free speech were curtailed but the freedom to say what they wanted, when they wanted remained. Not only were these rights protected but they were often upheld by those in opposition to their views of the world. Free speech was recognized by those in power as a value that we need to cherish and protected.
Fast forward forty years and we find those same liberally bent activists of the 60s who had their rights to free speech upheld; now trying earnestly to curtail the free speech of those they oppose. It is a sad state of affairs for it brings out the truth that in the beginning free speech was simply a tool they used to put forward their agenda. They were not true believers. If they had been, they would not now be trying so earnestly to shut down their opposition. One of the biggest disappointments of my lifetime is discovering that the idealistic liberalism of the sixties was largely just a ploy used to bring about change. There was actually no idealism but instead the motivation seems to have been a grab for pleasure and power. It was a joint effort of a generation to achieve selfish goals. Those so called ideals seem to have been just a tool. There was no real sense of corporate responsibility.
These are the same people who now demand “politically correct speech,” who put forth the idea that certain liberal groups have rights that others don’t and, of course, are trying to shut down talk radio. Politically correct speech standards are already being used in Canada to shut down opposition to certain gay rights by religious groups. It has set certain groups in our country apart and safe from attack, while allowing such attacks on others. “Hate crime” laws now make it illegal to think a certain way. Vandalize a building with gross and obnoxious pictures and you go to jail. Add a swastika and you go to jail for a lot longer. Attack or fight someone and you can get into serious trouble. If you use a racial slur against that person while beating them with a bat, somehow the crime is much more horrible. The lesson is to be kind while you beat on someone. The law will go easier on you.
In our latest “political reform,” individuals and businesses are forbidden to run ads during a political campaign. Of course, the money did not stop coming in. Instead it now goes to organizations like Move On and others. Instead of individuals, associations and businesses being able to put forth their ideas and support, we have groups of activists who may or may not have the public interest in mind, controlling the political climate early on because they are exempted from the law. After all, we can’t have real people or associations giving us their views. How much better are we now with the system controlled by a bunch of political hacks that may have no sense of reality or concern for the people?
Now there is a big push by many groups to bring back the so called “Fairness Doctrine” which would force radio to provide equal time to opposing views. This really means that talk radio would be shut down because of all the opposing views and the lack of interest the public has in hearing them. There is a rallying of support against radio because of the opinionated talk show hosts who are so popular and who are mostly from the conservative side of the political spectrum. It has even moved on to be against a certain company and individual, Robert Murdock and Fox News. Because it is the most popular news program on cable and because they disagree with the way it puts forth the news, these elitists have decided that it too must be shut down.
Mind you there is no similar rule for newspapers that continually come down on the side of liberal policies and there is no outcry against CNN which is far more liberal than Fox News is conservative. Also there is no rule for television news which for decades has been largely a liberal democratic mouthpiece. In the last election a Democrat actually admitted that the liberal bias of the media was worth 15 points in a national election. That bias was exposed by many bloggers who caught these major networks several times in the act of making up stories. Of course, the elitists now want to shut down those bloggers too.
All of this amounts to an assault on free speech, the very principle on which this country is founded and the very principle depended on by the 60s radicals. Having used these principals to their own desires, they now seem to assault it routinely. It resembles far more the tactics of Fascist Germany than the principals of a free nation. What do they fear by having opposing views on the public airways? Isn’t debate a good thing? Oh, I forgot, it has been declared that debate on global warming is no longer welcome. It is to be accepted as put forth by people who fly around in private jets and live in huge homes, to tell us to cut back our driving. If we oppose them, then we are evil and manipulative. Never mind the lack of good science behind many of their stipulations.
God’s people are meant to be free. True freedom is not politically correct, does not meet the needs of liberal or conservative elitists, and does not fit neatly into a box. True freedom, like life, is messy. In such freedom we need to depend on the institutions of the country to treat freedom with care and reverence. Unfortunately, today everything is about winning or loosing. If freedom needs to be stomped on to win, then so be it. We used to be better than this. We can be again. Let the people speak, right or wrong. If they are way off, people will turn them off. If they listen more and more to your opponents, then maybe the problem is not with the people or the media. Maybe it is with you. Let freedom reign!
Father Steven Foppiano
Response to Critics
My blog on the threat to free speech has brought forth a few commentators. I agree that attacks on free speech could come from either the far right or far left but I have to ask; where are those on the right who threaten free speech? You can look but you will not find it, at least nothing mainstream. What is scary about the current assault by the left on free speech is that it is apparently backed by the Democratic Party and it seeks the enforcement of Congress. It is a very real attack.
One critic asked for concrete examples. To this I point to the refusal of democrats to have a debate on Fox News. They were more than willing to appear on that program before the election but now pressure from some minority groups have pressured them to stay off that station. Also, the attempt to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine" is nothing more than a direct assault on conservative talk radio. What is dangerous is that this is the only media that conservatives have widespread access to. Most major broadcast media are decidedly to the left of center and almost always are anti conservative.
Yes, the broadcast airwaves are said to belong to the people but who says that Congress should control them. There is plenty more band width available and many stations willing to carry different views ... if they can draw listeners. Air America raised money from political activists to try to find a place on the airwaves. If you listened to them you would know why they failed. Expressed hate is interesting to a very few. Most people want intelligent arguments and discussion.
The fact is that the Fairness Doctrine is simply a way for people in Washington to control what goes on the airwaves. They would not try to apply it to newspapers and broadcast media because of the power they wield within their own political party and because they already are supported by them. As I said, one Democratic activist estimated the liberal media bias to be worth 15 percentage points in the polls. At least he was honest.
One critic stated that I seem to be taking political sides and as a cleric I should be above all that. Actually I would gladly condemn such actions by conservatives. Find me some and I will do so but conservativism believes in free speech, as it does in free markets and personal freedom.
As to the assertion that Jesus would be firmly with the liberals, I take exception. Jesus would call things as He saw them. He was liberal in some aspects in that He reached out to the poor and disfranchised but He was conservative when it came to personal responsibility. Jesus declared that the Kingdom of God begins within us, with us taking personal responsibility. He says that we need to stand up for moral values and be willing to call evil what it is.
As a cleric I am very interested in freedom. It is necessary for religion to have a place in society. Many would like us to shut up and stay out of world doings but that is not our calling. We are called to be part of the world and to make it better. I too can be liberal but it is a liberal method that includes personal responsibility, one that does not exempt myself or anyone from the called for response to God.
I will be getting back to items that are less of the current political activities but those that are political none the less. It is impossible to take a stand in society without being involved in politics. I will continue to do so and yes, I will come down on the side of the liberals but not to prove a point. It will be to enhance a stand that answers the call of God to reform ourselves, our society, and our world.
Comments
Regarding: truth and Truth proper.
I am not sure what "Truth proper" means or how it is different from "truth," but it probably doesn't matter.
Regardless, your statement that men have an obligation to the truth presumes that men have a mechanism for knowing, understanding, and applying the truth. Unfortunately, nobody has come up with a surefire method for distinguishing "Truths" (or "truths") from falsehoods.
However, people came up with a pretty good method for "reasoning out the truth," which we understand as dialogue. This dialogue requires that the participants have the freedom to present and defend their ideas. Through this free exchange, we place ourselves in a better position to receive the truth, or at least filter out the falsehoods.
Posted by: Song Beverly | August 28, 2007 10:59 AM
Interesting discussion. I would suggest, however, that the whole "free speech" paradigm is completely foreign to our holy religion. That's not to say that dissent should not ever be tolerated - often repression causes more evils than toleration - but that free speech is not the highest good and that sometimes, in some contexts, certain kinds of speech really do need to be curtailed. For the public good.
I think what both liberals and conservatives are missing is faith in the idea of truth. I'm not even speaking of Truth proper, but the idea that truth exists and that all men have an obligation to it. Once this is acknowledged, "free speech" might be a noble tradition, but it will never be an absolute right or a fundamental principle of social order.
Posted by: Jeff Culbreath | August 21, 2007 12:47 AM
I"ve seen plenty of "compassionate conservatives" attempt to squelch free speech. The term is not even used any longer. It served a purpose during the 2000 elections to trick people into voting Republican, and was discontinued when it was realized there is no such entity.
Political Correctness is not simply a "liberal value" as you seem predisposed to believe. I've seen it used quite commonly by those on the political right to justify their being right and make others wrong, as you are doing now, and to speak rudely of those attempting to create some kind of sensitivity for many who have not always been treated with respect, or have for a long time had others remain generally insensitive to "their" needs and rights.
I don't understand the vehemence of those who so oppose liberal values. The man praised as Lord, and for which Christianity was named, was the 'ultimate' liberal. He beseeched people to "love one another," and "love thy enemies," and "be thy brothers keeper," all the while "turning the other cheek" -- in 'thoughts' as well as deed. He implied that to even think evil of a man is the same as doing evil to him.
I have always believed that those witnessing for the word of Christ, were meant to 'be' the living example of Jesus' message, and not fall into the trap -- "judge not lest thee be judged."
Jesus' teachings were quite profound, and I sincerely wish people emulated them, rather than simply mimicking his words, and praising his name. Real faith is trusting in unconditional love, not constantly judging and criticizing others. I whole heartedly admit to also being guilty in this regard.
It's time for all of us to make a more serious attempt to walk the talk, not just talk the walk.
Posted by: Stephen | August 18, 2007 12:27 PM
I would be interested in some specific, documented examples of liberals trying to curtail free speech. I'd also like to know exactly which rights you think liberals are supposedly demanding and denying to others.
As for the current revisiting of the Fairness Doctrine, I'd like to know how that translates to "trying to shut down talk radio." Nobody is trying to shut down talk radio. What those who support the Fairness Doctrine would like to see is more variety of discourse out on the public airwaves, which by the way are supposed to be public, not contolled by a few corporations. It is a matter of "adding to" not "taking from."
Hate crime laws do not require people to think a certain way; they require people to ACT toward others with the same respect and tolerance they would expect for themselves, i.e., The Golden Rule. That seems like civil progress to me.
I'm surprised by the one-sidedness of your post. You foist all your criticism of curtailment of free speech on "liberals" while completely ignoring the likes of those who spend all their time demonizing people who advocate for more tolerance, more diverse public conversation, and more kindness toward others.
Posted by: Renee | August 18, 2007 12:01 PM
I take exception to your characterization of "liberal policies" as an assault on free speech. For one, you have not referred to any policy or movement that attempts to limit or censor the "content" of any person's speech. What content is prohibited? What "thoughts" are restricted?
"Free speech" has never served as an impermeable barrier to the law, particularly when the law is directed towards the manner in which the speech occurs, not the content of the speech. Were the hippies of the 60s given free reign to express their views? Of course not. While the content of their expression was given relative free reign, the manner in which they expressed their views was heavily restricted. Liberal rallies were permitted but only after the leaders of the movement successfully negotiated the highly regulated and bureaucratic process of filing for permits and procuring access to the limited areas that were designated free speech zones.
Fast forward 40 years. The airwaves are limited. Radio remains a powerful mechanism for conveying one's views to a large group of people. The notion that radio exists as a forum that cannot be regulated makes little sense. Certainly, the spirit of free speech will not thrive when finite radio waves are gobbled up by a single viewpoint. In the spirit of promoting free speech, why wouldn't we want to ensure that all views can be heard? The argument that the "market" should determine what views are allowed to be expressed on these limited radio waves is intellectually dishonest and goes against the concept of free speech. The market provides a forum for the most popular views to receive expression. However, it fails to ensure that ALL ideas receive expression.
Posted by: Dennis Freeze | August 14, 2007 02:35 PM